Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2.5 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

[I went out for a date with a guy who I thought had "class", but after our dinner of steak and lobster, he asked if he could scrap my potato and other things from my plate onto his . . . I said "I'm DONE . . . and left the restaurant and got a taxi home. Some people know what to do and how to say it, and others do not...

My goodness, you said "I'm done and left the restaurant and got a taxi home"? What a strange thing to say!

(To some of us, sins of punctuation are far worse than sins of restaurant left-over protocol. )

I went out for a date with a guy who I thought had "class", but after our dinner of steak and lobster, he asked if he could scrap my potato and other things from my plate onto his . . . I said "I'm DONE . . . and left the restaurant and got a taxi home. Some people know what to do and how to say it, and others do not.

If you want the pleasure of my "company" & my conversation, you have to earn it!

I'm DONE here!

Your obsession with your own dating life is irrelevant to this discussion. The world doesn't owe you a ripped movie star. Get over yourself.

Speaking of genetics, they would seem to have an influence on weight without necessarily being considered a disease.

The old "endomorph, ectomorph, mesomorph" types aren't considered valid anymore - I wonder what has replaced them. I know, for example, that I am genetically predisposed to being under the average weight for my height. If we don't say that is being an "ectomorph" any longer, what is it?

As it happens, I am also genetically inclined to overeat, which doesn't have to affect BMI, but is likely to. If those excess calories that result from eating more than I need aren't burned, they will turn to fat.

At any rate, genetics is definitely part of the weight picture for me, and obviously, for others. But I don't know the prevalence of this kind of genetic variation that affects weight.

At any rate, genetics is definitely part of the weight picture for me, and obviously, for others.

And for me too. When I look at pictures of my ancestors, they are all built just like me. I look at food and gain weight and all my cousins complain about the same thing. I like to think I am genetically predisposed to surviving a famine because my body stockpiles fat so easily. I'm also well designed for very, very cold weather. (My ancestors came from Russia.) And my husband is happy with me just the way I am.

Milk is high in estrogen. A symptom of drinking too much milk or milk products is adult acne. Oh Yah, and man boobs.

Refine Sugar is really bad for us in so many ways. When we practice a new skill ,let's say a new scale. After practicing this for fifteen min. or so, we stop, but our brain doesn't. Our mind takes 4-6 our to process new motor skills . If a musician has blood sugar crashes during this processing, than the mind won't learn it. Blood sugar crashes starve the brain.

yeah, i read that 'Wheat Belly' book which made me cut down wheat and gluten rich foods, and unbelievably it made my joint pain in my knees go away, just like that! i used to eat at Panera Bread a lot, loving their bagels and breads, but now i hardly touch such foods anymore. i didn't go entirely gluten free, and rarely i would take a chance on that a little. but still, such a change has made me feel a lot better and healthier. i don't need to read that refute on that book, as it works for me. i truly believe wheat and many gluten rich foods are bad for many people just like me, who don't really have a celiac disease, and yet don't realize our bodies are sensitive at certain level to gluten in foods, and react to it physically with inflammation and pains. also, for some people, weigh gain is linked to eating wheat related products, such as pizza, bread, bagel and pasta, and once they drastically reduce those types of foods, they will loose weight. i have a friend who did just that: stop eating pasta and breads and she finally lost weight.

so, as i said before that what you eat has a lot to do with your health and weight, and unless you eat right foods, you won't get any healthier or loose any weight. sugar and wheat would be the first things people should cut from their diet if they want to be healthier or thinner.

At any rate, genetics is definitely part of the weight picture for me, and obviously, for others.

And for me too. When I look at pictures of my ancestors, they are all built just like me. I look at food and gain weight and all my cousins complain about the same thing. I like to think I am genetically predisposed to surviving a famine because my body stockpiles fat so easily. I'm also well designed for very, very cold weather. (My ancestors came from Russia.) And my husband is happy with me just the way I am.

Everyone is predisposed to gaining weight - if they are surrounded by plenty, which we are now. 20 years ago, there were hardly any obese people in China: go to Beijing and see what it's like now. Not quite as bad as in USA and UK, but they're catching up very quickly. The same for the big rich cities in otherwise poor countries (including all African countries). The genes haven't changed - it's the environment that has. But homo sapiens haven't adapted: it now requires an effort (controlling the amount we eat) to stay slim.

Looking at old newsreels program about VE Day celebrations in London, I'm struck by how slim everyone is - everyone. The same when I watched footage of The Great Depression in USA, when, amazingly, the life expectancy soared. That's because a low-calorie (but nutritious) diet prolongs life in all animals from mice to fish to elephants: there's a community of people around the world who've been restricting their calorie intake for some decades to live longer, and many of them look amazingly young for their age - their ageing process has slowed down, and they are also very healthy, and certainly not lacking energy. (Their calorie intake is around 1500 for the men and 1200 for the women - which is, oddly enough, the average calorie intake for the non-affluent population for centuries until fairly recently).

Yes, some people have bigger appetites than others, and genes determine your body shape in terms of whether you're predisposed to being pear-shaped (for women) or muscular (for men). But having a 'beer belly' (a protruding belly) increases your risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease etc, etc. There is a South Pacific island where, before they became rich from tourism with the building of an airport, diabetes was almost unknown and people worked the land and were slim. Now, with imports of fatty lamb from NZ, obesity has gone out of control, everyone is apple-shaped, and half the population (including even children) have become diabetic.

_________________________
"I don't play accurately - anyone can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life."

We're eating more processed foods, and those foods contain extra sugar. (I'm not eating them, I'm not including myself in we.)

I wouldn't blame obesity on the eating of fatty lamb. I'm sure the total intake of unnecessary sugars increased in that unnamed South Pacific island as well.

I'm eating more or less the paleo\Atkins diet and consume a great deal of fat. My weight has gone from around 180 pounds to just over 150 (81 kg to 69 kg). I've done this in four months, so the consumption of fat is not an issue. (My breakfast today was a chicken thigh in butter along with broccoli and peas also in butter. I baked a whole chicken last night and I ate what was left over this morning.)

Eating fat is not a problem in losing weight nor does it impact negatively on blood chemistry. (I just had my blood chemistry checked three weeks ago and the numbers were all excellent. I can post them here if anyone's interested.)

The consumption of unnecessary sugars and along with 'starchy' foods is what is driving this obesity epidemic. It's the sodas and fruit drinks, along with the 'healthy' low fat yogurt also with extra sugar, that are the culprits in this obesity epidemic. (I had to laugh when reading In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto by Michael Pollan. He advises to avoid any foods packaged with the word 'healthy' on the label and gives examples like low fat yogurt. They remove the fat and add sugar. There's pictures of fruit on the package but there's no fiber.)

I'm finishing up reading Pure, White, and Deadly, a book on sugar. The sugar industry is just as evil as the tobacco industry.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Not only have I lost weight that I found impossible to lose over the last 20 years, but my blood chemistry improved as well. I have all the proof I need.

We're eating more processed foods, and those foods contain extra sugar. (I'm not eating them, I'm not including myself in we.)

I wouldn't blame obesity on the eating of fatty lamb. I'm sure the total intake of unnecessary sugars increased in that unnamed South Pacific island as well.

I'm eating more or less the paleo\Atkins diet and consume a great deal of fat. My weight has gone from around 180 pounds to just over 150 (81 kg to 69 kg). I've done this in four months, so the consumption of fat is not an issue. (My breakfast today was a chicken thigh in butter along with broccoli and peas also in butter. I baked a whole chicken last night and I ate what was left over this morning.)

Eating fat is not a problem in losing weight nor does it impact negatively on blood chemistry. (I just had my blood chemistry checked three weeks ago and the numbers were all excellent. I can post them here if anyone's interested.)

The consumption of unnecessary sugars and along with 'starchy' foods is what is driving this obesity epidemic. It's the sodas and fruit drinks, along with the 'healthy' low fat yogurt also with extra sugar, that are the culprits in this obesity epidemic. (I had to laugh when reading In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto by Michael Pollan. He advises to avoid any foods packaged with the word 'healthy' on the label and gives examples like low fat yogurt. They remove the fat and add sugar. There's pictures of fruit on the package but there's no fiber.)

I'm finishing up reading Pure, White, and Deadly, a book on sugar. The sugar industry is just as evil as the tobacco industry.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Not only have I lost weight that I found impossible to lose over the last 20 years, but my blood chemistry improved as well. I have all the proof I need.

My point about the fatty lamb was mainly in relation to the soaring in the amount of calories those islanders ate, once those flights started coming in with the crates of discarded fatty offcuts of lamb (that Kiwis wouldn't eat). Before that, their diet was based around carbs (root vegetables etc) - but not sugar.

IMO, noone who wants a healthy diet should ever drink soda or anything containing high-fructose corn syrup or indeed, any other processed junk.

_________________________
"I don't play accurately - anyone can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life."

IMO, noone who wants a healthy diet should ever drink soda or anything containing high-fructose corn syrup or indeed, any other processed junk.

+1

I was at the gym last night and two girls working for Red Bull were handing out free samples of their product. I did my best to educate them.

I mentioned high fructose corn syrup to them but they had no idea what I was talking about (and Red Bull over here just uses sugar). I have since learned that there's a very low production quota of HFCS here in the EU (but it not low for health reasons).

The one girl asked me what I do if my sugar level is a little low and I start getting light headed, no doubt asked as a way to give sugar drinks a more positive light.

I just said I eat an apple. Yea, well apples have sugar. Yea, but they also have fiber which helps to keep the sugar level in my blood from spiking. ... and so on

IMO, noone who wants a healthy diet should ever drink soda or anything containing high-fructose corn syrup or indeed, any other processed junk.

+1

I was at the gym last night and two girls working for Red Bull were handing out free samples of their product. I did my best to educate them.

I mentioned high fructose corn syrup to them but they had no idea what I was talking about (and Red Bull over here just uses sugar). I have since learned that there's a very low production quota of HFCS here in the EU (but it not low for health reasons).

The one girl asked me what I do if my sugar level is a little low and I start getting light headed, no doubt asked as a way to give sugar drinks a more positive light.

I just said I eat an apple. Yea, well apples have sugar. Yea, but they also have fiber which helps to keep the sugar level in my blood from spiking. ... and so on

Milk. Milk (even skim) is excellent for low blood sugar, works quickly , has low glycemic index AND you get protein (not to mention Ca++ for the over 40ish crowd) to boot!

piano joy, I'm not a health nut but it does seem odd that only humans continue to drink milk beyond childhood ... and the milk isn't even from our own species. I never gave that any thought until I started reading about nutrition.

Everyone is predisposed to gaining weight - if they are surrounded by plenty, which we are now. 20 years ago, there were hardly any obese people in China: go to Beijing and see what it's like now. Not quite as bad as in USA and UK, but they're catching up very quickly. The same for the big rich cities in otherwise poor countries (including all African countries). The genes haven't changed - it' the environment that has. But homo sapiens haven't adapted: it now requires an effort (controlling the amount we eat) to stay slim.

I don't think the rise in obesity means that people are predisposed to gaining weight - it just means that if the environment and culture changes in certain ways, the general population will gain weight. But that is not a predisposition to gain weight, genetically speaking.

Said differently - if eating a lot of junk makes a person fat, it may be because they are eating junk, rather than because they have some predisposition towards weight gain.

piano joy, I'm not a health nut but it does seem odd that only humans continue to drink milk beyond childhood ... and the milk isn't even from our own species. I never gave that any thought until I started reading about nutrition.

piano joy, I'm not a health nut but it does seem odd that only humans continue to drink milk beyond childhood ... and the milk isn't even from our own species. I never gave that any thought until I started reading about nutrition.

Ah, that video again lol. There plenty of research that contradicts that man's findings, and with far less sensationalism. The science is far from being conclusive. Cut it out of your diet if you wish, but as bad as the tobacco industry? No.

piano joy, I'm not a health nut but it does seem odd that only humans continue to drink milk beyond childhood ... and the milk isn't even from our own species. I never gave that any thought until I started reading about nutrition.

It's not really convenient for other species to do that, is it?

Apart from the milk indistry, I wonder why we do it.

Over 60% of the world's population are lactose intolerant, i.e. they've lost the capacity to digest milk sugar soon after they're weaned. In other words, for most of the world, cow/goat/sheep/anyone else's milk isn't a normal part of the human diet, just as milk from another species isn't a normal part of any other animal species' diet. Evolution over millennia, after farming of cattle etc became prevalent, allowed humans of European ancestry (and a few other parts of the world) to retain the capacity to digest lactose into adulthood.

But milk contains a high percentage of saturated fat, which leads to high cholesterol and increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. Humans still haven't evolved to cope with this problem......

_________________________
"I don't play accurately - anyone can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life."

piano joy, I'm not a health nut but it does seem odd that only humans continue to drink milk beyond childhood ... and the milk isn't even from our own species. I never gave that any thought until I started reading about nutrition.

It's not really convenient for other species to do that, is it?

Apart from the milk indistry, I wonder why we do it.

Over 60% of the world's population are lactose intolerant, i.e. they've lost the capacity to digest milk sugar soon after they're weaned. In other words, for most of the world, cow/goat/sheep/anyone else's milk isn't a normal part of the human diet, just as milk from another species isn't a normal part of any other animal species' diet. Evolution over millenia, after farming of cattle etc became prevalent, allowed humans of European ancestry (and a few other parts of the world) to retain the capacity to digest lactose into adulthood.

But milk contains a high percentage of saturated fat, which leads to high cholesterol and increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. Humans still haven't evolved to cope with this problem......

Not true of skim milk (and I buy organic, btw...)I understand the opposite view, however, I believe skim milk ranks # 3 in terms of healthy liquids.( water & a good margarita ranking 1st and 2nd ! )

bennevis, But milk contains a high percentage of saturated fat, which leads to high cholesterol and increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. Humans still haven't evolved to cope with this problem......

You know, I consume a fair amount of fat in my diet ... all kinds of animal fat, dairy fat, and vegetable fat. It's interesting that my blood chemistry is excellent.

When I went back to my family doctor three weeks ago to pick up the results of my blood work, the doctor's assistant advised me to watch the amount of fat I consume but she only mentioned that after I told her about the diet I follow ... low carbs, high fat (and no starches).

I had the results of the blood work in my hand and just waved them at her. If animal fat is so bad, why is my blood chemistry measurably excellent?

There's an explanation for that ... and I have a life outside of this forum.

I saw an interesting documentary once where they recreated a historical (and controversial) experiment in which a group of people increased their daily calorie intake from normal to more than triple for several weeks, including all sorts of junk food they wouldn't normally eat. In both experiments, the results were that a few people gained a lot of weight, a few people put on an inch or two around the waist, and a few saw no changes to their body whatsoever.

Everyone is predisposed to gaining weight - if they are surrounded by plenty, which we are now. 20 years ago, there were hardly any obese people in China: go to Beijing and see what it's like now. Not quite as bad as in USA and UK, but they're catching up very quickly. The same for the big rich cities in otherwise poor countries (including all African countries). The genes haven't changed - it' the environment that has. But homo sapiens haven't adapted: it now requires an effort (controlling the amount we eat) to stay slim.

I don't think the rise in obesity means that people are predisposed to gaining weight - it just means that if the environment and culture changes in certain ways, the general population will gain weight. But that is not a predisposition to gain weight, genetically speaking.

Said differently - if eating a lot of junk makes a person fat, it may be because they are eating junk, rather than because they have some predisposition towards weight gain.

Numerous studies have consistently shown that when people (of any age) are given easy access to a large variety and amounts of appetizing foods/junk, they'll eat more. Which is what we're faced with today. It's not just junk food either. Excess calories cannot be 'disposed of' - the body has to store it, as fat. If necessary, we'll develop more fat cells to accomodate (which won't disappear when we no longer require them). We'll even store fat in organs like the liver: NAFLD (non-alcoholic fatty liver disease) is becoming almost an epidemic in Western countries, and overtaking alcohol-related liver disease in some areas...

_________________________
"I don't play accurately - anyone can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life."

I saw an interesting documentary once where they recreated a historical (and controversial) experiment in which a group of people increased their daily calorie intake from normal to more than triple for several weeks, including all sorts of junk food they wouldn't normally eat. In both experiments, the results were that a few people gained a lot of weight, a few people put on an inch or two around the waist, and a few saw no changes to their body whatsoever.

I saw that programme too. It was not a proper controlled experiment - the subjects were free to get on with their normal lives, which made all the difference between how much weight they put on, and how they put it on.

If subjects were made to eat all their meals in front of the experimenters and their exercise routines monitored, and they stayed under surveillance throughout the experimental period, the results would be much more valid.

Unfortunately, many so-called 'studies' are flawed in this way, which is why the food industry can 'justify' themselves so easily. And, not to put too fine a point on it, why so many people can claim that their weight problem is due to 'low metabolism' or something similar (rather than eating too much).....

_________________________
"I don't play accurately - anyone can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life."

I saw an interesting documentary once where they recreated a historical (and controversial) experiment in which a group of people increased their daily calorie intake from normal to more than triple for several weeks, including all sorts of junk food they wouldn't normally eat. In both experiments, the results were that a few people gained a lot of weight, a few people put on an inch or two around the waist, and a few saw no changes to their body whatsoever.

I saw that programme too. It was not a proper controlled experiment - the subjects were free to get on with their normal lives, which made all the difference between how much weight they put on, and how they put it on.

If subjects were made to eat all their meals in front of the experimenters and their exercise routines monitored, and they stayed under surveillance throughout the experimental period, the results would be much more valid.

Unfortunately, many so-called 'studies' are flawed in this way, which is why the food industry can 'justify' themselves so easily. And, not to put too fine a point on it, why so many people can claim that their weight problem is due to 'low metabolism' or something similar (rather than eating too much).....

How conclusive can a dietary study be that lasts only "for several weeks"?